International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Last Planner System
Harsh Shah1, Karan Asnani2, Rishabh Shah3, Aliasgar Chasmawala4
1,2,3,4Post
Graduate Student, National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Pune, India.
----------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract : The paper presents the set of information on the particular measures of the Last Planner System (LPS) of Production
Control. Then, the system as a whole is described in construction application and the process of last planner system. Paper includes
comparison between LPS and traditional project control model (Critical Path Method).
Keywords: Last Planner System, Critical path method, Percent plan complete (PPC), Project Management,
1. INTRODUCTION
Planning and Scheduling is the back-bone for any Construction Project as execution is purely based on the planning and
scheduling. If Planning and Scheduling is done haphazardly then execution of the project will be affected and the project would
observe time overrun and consecutive cost overrun. Critical Path Method (CPM) and Program Evaluation and Review
Technique (PERT) are being used for planning and scheduling in the construction industry since last 5 decades. Over the period
of time, certain limitations of CPM and PERT was observed. Though the network representation in CPM and PERT is an integral
part of Project, Last Planner System aids in better clarity about the work on executional basis. Last Planner System (LPS) was
developed to increase the effectiveness of planning and control by making programs more predictable, thereby improving the
chances of delivering them on time.
1.1 Last Planner Theory
In 1993 Ballard introduced Last Planner System based upon studies on how to improve progress in weekly work plans or plans
and how to control the work flow of design and various construction projects.
In traditional project management system it talks about what should be done according to master plan. In 2000, Ballade looked
forward to schedule that involves the following.
I.
II.
Identify the Work Packages that can be completed in the following work period.
Consulting with stake holders in order to complete the work within the time constraint so that procurement of
materials and equipment will be assigned for the task in the particular week.
III.
Identify the work that cannot be completed for the upcoming week as required.
IV.
Create a set of activities that are going to be completed prior to delivery of the assigned work.
V.
The look forward work for the next 5-10 weeks, depending upon the type of project, it impacts when applied in the
Last Planner System.
1.2 Last Planner system in Construction
According to the research by lean Construction Institute 70% of the projects are budgeted and time overrun which are
implemented by CPM (Critical Path Method).In CPM Longest path is determined. In case of delay any critical activity whole
duration is shifted. Chances of more error as more detailed plan is determined. LPS overcomes the disadvantages of CPM it
gives better result in weekly work plan.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1804
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Fig – 1: Last Planner Diagram
LPS is a system for project production planning and control to achieve reliable execution by creating a better work flow. It
integrates (Should-Can-Will-Do planning). It’s a perfect solution for the construction and the design process, that enables the
project managers to improve the quality in accordance of satisfying clients and owner’s needs.
Fig. 2: Creating and maintaining reliable work flow
2. Advantages of Last Planner System

To deliver the projects more safely.

It reduces the project duration.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1805
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net

Further betterment to control the cost in the project.

It reduces Stress in the Project Management Staff.

To help to make the project more reliable customer for JUST, IN TIME deliverables.

It works in a way that CPM doesn’t.
3. Application of Last Planner System / Process of Last Planner System

Last Planner System is the tool that connects the lean management and the construction industry.

In today’s dynamic environment we find different production variables, so it is important how we can plan and control
the project efficiently. The answer of this question is given by Ballard and Howell in last planner system theory.

The last planner system is applied in five distinct phases.
I.
II.
Master Schedule (What Should Occur):- It is a mixture of knowledge and Gantt Bar Chart. It is prepared by
supervising team of the project.
INPUT
Previous Week’s
Schedule Updates
OUTPUT
Secure
LookAhead Milestone
Planning
(4-6
weeks out)
100% Accurate
Set Start Dates
Ability
to
predictably see
into the future
what work needs
to be done.
Effective change
control
Set the stage for
effective
pull
planning
Min.
Collaboration
Owner,
Designer,
General
Contractor
CM
(CCMS),
Builder
Pull Planning (What Should Occur):- It is prepared to achieve milestones collaboratively. Ideally while developing a
phase schedule all the stakeholders should be present.
INPUT
Accurate
Milestone
Schedule (from 46
week lookahead schedule)
OUTPUT
Collaboratively built
plan that all team
members
have
agreed to
Segmentation of
work coming in
the next 6 weeks
Micro schedule in
MSP, P6 or Excel that
can effectively be
used to assign work
and
monitor
daily/weekly
progress
The team confident
the
plan
and
Milestones can be
achieved
Constraint
analysis
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
Min.
Collaboration
Owner,
Designer,
General
Contractor, CM
(CCMS),
Builder
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1806
III.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Look Ahead Planning (What can Occur):- All the participants of the project report the progress of assigned area in
order to plan for the future.
INPUT
6
week-ahead
schedule of what
work is supposed
to be done in the
near future
OUTPUT
Constraint
log is the key
output of the
Make Ready
Plan.
Six week slice of
your
overall
planning;
now
focusing
progressively
more on the week
directly in front of
the team.
Any
necessary
schedule
revisions
(last resort)
Min. Collaboration
Production Team:
Superintendent,
Foremen, Project
Manager,
Direct
Project
Support
Personnel
Confirmation
that your pull
plan intact.
IV.
V.
Production Planning (What will Occur):- It is a fixed daily plan, which is prepared on weekly basis. Once a week
each last planner is decided to prepare the work they can perform in coming week.
INPUT
Best if held at or
as close to the
actual work as
possible without
interrupting the
production
workers.
OUTPUT
Team member
involvement
Raise any issues
that
might
prevent
completion of a
task assignment.
Continuous
improvement
Compare daily
progress to what
was in the WWP
for that particular
day.
Open
communication
Min. Collaboration
Production
Team:
Superintendent,
Foremen,
Project
Manager,
Direct
Project
Support
Personnel
Percent plan complete-PPC(What did occur):- This is another key feature of the LPS, which tracks what is known as
percent plan complete. It is calculated by dividing the number of completed assignments (what “did” get done) by the
total number of assignments each week (what was projected “will” get done).
PPC = (Work done / Work Completed)* 100%
INPUT
Determine
what
assignments
© 2019, IRJET
|
OUTPUT
Ability to gauge
the reliability of
the
planning
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
Min. Collaboration
Production
Team:
Superintendent,
Foremen,
Project
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1807
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
were
completed or
not based on
the plan.
Reasons for
failure
to
complete
planned work
(the
most
important
input)
Focus is on
process
improvement
system.
Manager,
Project
Personnel
Direct
Support
Weekly analysis
of PPC results in
identifying
reasons for the
disruption
or
work.
Systematic
learning shared
at the point of
work
The meeting should be done in three phases.
I.
II.
III.
In the last day of week meeting should be done by analyzing the facts and progress with comparison to previous
week planning
Each participant will discuss about the work in following week.
Every project staff will attend this meeting and identify the problems one week in advance in order to deliver it on
time.

Research studies talks on reliability of this method

It is easy to reach a reliability level of more than 70% by implementing last planner system.

By the look ahead schedules it is possible to achieve much high reliability.
Fig. 3: Process of Last planner system
4. Critical Path Method V/S Last Planner System
In CPM there is no way to determine which activity indeed can be determined.
As per research 60% Project in UK and 70% Projects in US are running late as per the schedule.
Sr.
1
2
© 2019, IRJET
|
CPM
Logic is Embedded in
Software
High Maintenance
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
LPS
Applied Common Sense
Low Maintenance
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1808
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
3
4
5
www.irjet.net
Managing Critical Path
Focus on Managing Work
dates
Planning
based
on
contracts
Managing Variability
Focus on Managing Work
Flow
Planning
based
on
interdependencies
5. Stakeholders involved in Last Planner System
Stakeholders can be defined as: (1) who are actively directly or indirectly involved in the Project. (2) Has interest that may be
positively or negatively affected by the performance till the completion of the Project. (3) That might exert influence either it’s
deliverable or Team members.
Different Stakeholders that involves in Last planner System Environment are:
1.
Project Crew members
2.
Foreman, Supervisors
3.
Construction coordination Management services (CCMS, Construction coordinators, Project Engineers)
4.
Project Manager
5.
Project Implementation team (PIT)
6.
Third-Party support
7.
Tool Owner (TO)
8.
System Owner (SO)
9.
Tool Supplier (Vendor)
10. Site management team
11. Enterprise leadership steering committee (ELSC)
6. Conclusion
The biggest disadvantage of CPM, comparing to the LPS is that in the first method, there is no way to determine which activities
indeed can be done. The survey of Alan Mossman showed that as many as 66% UK projects in 2013 and 70% US projects in
2012 based on CPM were delivered late. According to the research of LPS developers, the following weak points of the Critical
Path Method have been observed: all plans are forecasts; all forecasts are wrong, the longer the forecast, the more wrong it
becomes, the more detailed the forecast, the more wrong it is. On the contrary, the Last Planner System applies the common
sense in planning and focuses on the smooth work flow as well as takes into account the independencies between activities.
This way, it helps to move from push to pull system and supports logistics planning involving much more just than the due
dates and the sequence of prior tasks.
The LPS is a method combining many tools already known and used in the industry, as it allows the MRP II to implement the
Lean philosophy for shipbuilding. Nevertheless, a major element differentiates the MRP and LPS: LPS is perfectly adapted to a
dynamic environment. “Classic” tools remain the basis of the methods developed for Lean Construction: the real innovation
comes from the adaptation of these tools to a perpetually changing construction environment.
REFERENCES
1.
Ballard, G., "Look-ahead Planning the missing link in production control".
2.
A. Mossman, Last Planner®: 5+ 1 crucial & collaborative conversations for predictable design & construction delivery.
The Change Business Ltd., UK, 26 (2013).
3.
Koskela, L., "Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction", 1992.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1809
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
4.
G. Ballard, G. Howell, Implementing lean construction: improving downstream performance. Lean construction, 111125 (1997).
5.
Kim Y. and Jang, J. (2005) Case study: Application of Last Planner to heavy civil construction.
BIOGRAPHIES
Pursuing Post Graduate in
Advanced
Construction
Management
from
NICMAR
(PUNE), having a year experience
in Real estate industry with skillset
of Primavera and MSP.
Pursuing Post Graduate in
Advanced
Construction
Management
from
NICMAR
(PUNE), having a technical skills in
AutoCAD.
Pursuing Post Graduate in
Advanced
Construction
Management
from
NICMAR
(PUNE) having technical skills in
AutoCAD and MSP.
Pursuing Post Graduate in
Advanced
Construction
Management
from
NICMAR
(PUNE), having a year of
experience in site execution.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1810